July 2, 2007

Is it just slipping my mind or is there no word for this? I'm looking for a word for the attitude -- something like sexism or homophobia -- to signify hostility toward people for their failure to be married. I don't mean mere discrimination, such as we find in the tax code or employment insurance plans. I mean actual negative feelings toward the disfavored group. And I don't mean the attitude that has to do only with the suspicion that an unmarried person is gay.

I mean something more general that would apply to the way people feel toward someone who remains single for any reason, including the inability to find a suitable partner or an unwillingness to accept monogamy.

If there is no word, do you think it's because there is not general hostility toward the unmarried? But it is helpful to have words to describe phenomena that turn out not to be true, so we can talk about whether it is true. So, if there is not word, can you coin one?

And I don't mean to suggest that there's no hostility toward the married. I think there is. If you have a word for that let me know.

I don't think there is a word. Its perhaps because we don't talk about it much. You know some one who's not married and you know enough about them to be able assume that they are unlucky, difficult, or preoccupied with the "advantages" of being single. Too many reasons to fit under one word.

Spinster is always used as a negative, but bachelor often is, too. When it's used to describe someone young and virile, it isn't, but it often takes on connotations of rejection and failure when people talk about old bachelors. Martin Amis writes humorously about aging single men "reeking of the batch".

I don't think there is a word for just the attitude. "Family Values" is sometimes used as a euphemism for it. I'd guess that the animosity itself is on the decline, though. 50% divorce rates among boomers have a lot to do with that. People are getting married later and later, if at all.

As the Sublime song says:Marriage doesn't work in the world today/It's an institution that is in decay.

I'm not saying lots of people believe that, but it's a concept that is at least floating around in the collective unconscious of the younger generations.

How about the intersection of attitudes about marriage and childbearing--an unwed mother is not a spinster, a married childless couple may be regarded with suspicion as not fully participating in the human drama.

"I don't mean mere discrimination, such as we find in the tax code or employment insurance plans."

Don't you mean positive discrimination? Being married has cost us thousands annually as a result of being married. The marriage penalty has been reduced but its still present in the AMT, and with other limits/phaseouts such as the limit for a Roth IRA.

As for insurance, perhaps our provider is weird but our coverage for the employee plus one plan is more than double what it would be for employee only.

As someone on the far side of 35 who has yet to be married (but still believes it will happen, naysayers be damned), I have occasionally had it said about me that there "must be something wrong" with me to have not done so yet, as if I'm failing to uphold my civic duty or something. (People don't actually say these things to my face, mind you, but I hear about it from others.)

I usually shrug off these comments, as the people who are saying them are, more often than not, trapped in less-than ideal marriages themselves, probably because they felt that they had to be married and ended up with the wrong person. Me, I'm content to wait for Ms. Right.

I am 42 and never married. Most of my male friends now call me the smartest man they know. Most of my female friends are constantly trying to set me up. Another female friend who is 36 and never married keeps threatening to get me drunk and take me to Las Vegas.

“Spinster: noun A woman whose occupation is to Spin to participate in the whirling movement of creation; one who has chosen her Self, who defines her Self by choice neither in relation to children nor to men; one who is Self-identified; a whirling dervish, spiraling in New Time/ Space. see spinning.”

“Spinning:1: Gyn/Ecological creation; Dis-covering the lost threads of connectedness within the cosmos and repairing this thread in the process; whirling and twirling the threads of Life on the axis of the Spinsters’ own be-ing2: turning quickly on one’s heels; moving counterclockwise; whirling away in all directions from the death march of patriarchy."

The negative terms that come to my mind are "hermit" or "recluse." I've heard these used even for someone who is active in the community but retires to himself/herself at home.

Maybe the term "single" is, in itself, derogatory, as if to say that someone who is unattached through marriage is alone in life and has no meaningful connections to anyone. Yeah, I think that "single" is bad enough.

Of course, "single" is also an economic term, so, yeah, there is probably a need for a new one. Maybe we haven't come up with another one because we keep expecting their status to change at any minute. LOL

On various fora over the years, this idea has come up, and I've seen it written about in dead tree media; can't remember where exactly though. Usually, it was from the point of view of a single who was getting tired of always being the one whom coworkers called on to sacrifice -- work late or on weekends or whatever -- because, well, he/she didn't have a family that needed attention.

I think it depends. For example, I see someone who refuses to get married because they cannot say monogomous as someone who is a cultural leach. Meaning they feed off the benefits of a conservative culture,

There lacks such a word for men, divorced women, and widows because it has never was as meaningful for these groups to marry (a proxy for failure to reproduce), in Western culture anyway.

In contrast, despite the Daly definition, a woman not married by a certain age in the Victorian era was deemed worthless, often making her an outcast. From a 1903 dictionary, this definition of spinster: "A woman of evil life and character; - so called from being forced to spin in a house of correction."

But there isn't a name for the attitude itself now because the term is no longer used, so there is not a group of spinsters being called spinsters to complain about a term they dislike.

In contrast, animosity toward gays has a term because it exists. A word for the attitude requires a Marxist class approach to language and both the term and the "condition" were gone long before such linguistic deconstruction could occur.

And I don't mean to suggest that there's no hostility toward the married. I think there is.

Ann, I'm curious as to why you think there is a hostility toward the married. I confess that in my youth I thought of marriage as a form of death, but was never hostile towards those who were married. And I've never noticed hostility towards my own spouseless, spawnless self.

"Better beggar woman and single than Queen and married." Animosity toward the married is so very Elizabethan. I don't know about the reverse though. Remember that story a while back about straight couples who felt discriminated against by gays, who were calling them 'breeders'?

My view toward singles depends on their age, but once they have gotten to a point where they should have had ample opportunity to find a partner--the attitude is generally negative and in three categories: Envy, pity and scorn.

Envy, because they are not tied-down by the resposibilities spouse and kids. They have plenty of free time and money and can go on exotic trips, like to Berlin.

Pity, because they must have to endure much lonlyness and don't get to enjoy the comfort and joy of family.

Scorn, because they are not "putting anything back" into society by creating and preparing the next generation.

But really, mostly it is envy and pity.

dbp

ps

I of course (up till now) have kept these attitudes to myself. It was pretty common (when I was working at a University) for folks to be openly hostile to people who reproduce: The theory being that we are overpopulating the world and consuming more than our share of tax revinues (public schools & etc.)

On standardized forms, they usually ask for "race", "sex", and "marital status"...

So, by analogy to racism and sexism, how about "maritalism"?

On the upside, single people can be just as maritalist against married folk as married people can be against the unwed. Heck, the term's large enough to encompass irrational bias against the divorced or even against widows.

It has the added bonus that it's almost impossible not to see "materialist" the first time you read it.

I don't think there's a real issue here. The married and unmarried view each other through lenses of their own personal experiences with the status they have chosen. If unhappily married, then singledom looks good. If happily married, then they feel sorry for singles. Happy singles who watch married couples fall out think, "thank God I'm not like them." Unhappy singles watch married couples bill and coo and it accentuates their perceived loneliness.

This is a divide that's more like urban vs. suburban dwellers. You made your decision, you basically like your decision, but sometimes you have regrets.

Pity, because they must have to endure much lonlyness and don't get to enjoy the comfort and joy of family.

That actually underlines what I find odd about marriage -- the notion that your whole social life must be tied up in one other person, that you cannot have satisfying human relationships that do not involve that person and/or your children with that person. Maybe it is true for some people, but to me it just seems... weirdly needy.

Revenant, you may contibute more, but only financially. The Shakers kind of had a longevity problem based on their failure to procreate, and any society that has that same failure will eventually disappear.

John, I agree with you, but with one caveat- more happily married people will complain about being unhappy than unhappily single people will complain about single life.

That I suppose is part of the envy state we have been talking about when it comes to the married/single debate. Maybe we complain about our spouses to the single folks to prevent them from finding the spouse attractive?

The word you're looking for has to be something like "commitmentphobic." The most common criticism of my singlehood that I hear from envious marrieds is that I lack "commitment."

Marrieds who game the system win big-time in social security. A 20-year old who just wants a butler or a maid can marry one at 20, get a replacement at 30, again at 40, 50, 60. All of them, even if indolent, will be entitled to a free-ride on the social security earned by the gamer.

Ann:I don't know if I sense a hostility toward the unmarried. But there often is a shameful disdain.

Unmarried people often face the same disdain shown toward the long-married who have no children. People in both categories often seem to be seen as being less than full adults, sometimes as self-indulgent and immature.

Single and marrieds without children from among my parishioners and friends (and extended family) have reported running into this disdain and I've observed it up close.

Why do these attitudes exist?

Well, it can't entirely be explained by saying that married people (with children) are miserable and resent the "freedom" they see in the lives of singles and marrieds without children. I, for one, am happy in my nearly-thirty-three year old marriage and thoroughly enjoyed raising our two children.

Nor do I think that the disdain of singles is related to the suspicion of homosexuality. If anything, long-term singles are often seen by the people holding to the attitudes we're here describing as being asexual.

There is, I think, a more simple explanation. Some people feel that adults have to go through certain proscribed life-hoops in order to truly be considered an adult. They tend to believe this all the more if they have, in fact, gone through those hoops, no matter the quality of their marital or family relationships. They see themselves as part of an adults' club and looking down their noses on those who haven't gone through the hoop is one of the "privileges" of membership.

The phenomenon, disdain of singles and marrieds without children, is real. If you come up with a term, maybe you can copyright it.

The Shakers kind of had a longevity problem based on their failure to procreate, and any society that has that same failure will eventually disappear.

My one guilt about remaining single has been my failure to contribute demographically.

However I have a friend at work who is on his third wife, has nine children (20's to less than a year) and his current wife is pregnant again. I have begun negoiations with him to purchase breeder credits.

"My view toward singles depends on their age, but once they have gotten to a point where they should have had ample opportunity to find a partner--the attitude is generally negative"

So, dbp, exactly when is that "point"? I don't think it necessarily does--or should--depend on age; if anything, it's what stage in one's life that he or she is in that should matter.

Also...what John Stodder, Revenant and Mark Daniels said. Especially the idea from Mark about people looking down on others who haven't jumped through the same hoops that they have. When I was 25, if I'd jumped through the marriage hoop, I would've fallen and broken my face. At this point in my life, I believe I'll succeed when the time comes.

In every way except procreation. I require less, I consume less, and I produce more. And as for procreation, well, supply exceeds demand where kids are concerned... and taxation ensures that I get stuck with a hefty chunk of other peoples' child-rearing costs, too, so I'm contributing to child-rearing despite my childlessness.

I'd also note that slightly less than half of married couples actually have kids and stay married long enough to raise them, so giving married people credit for producing the next generation is probably giving them too much credit.

I certainly plan on getting married someday, but people like Sloanasaurus can kiss my ass. I love how they call us cultural leaches, or act as if anybody who isn't married at a certain age is some sort of cultural leech.

The crushing social conformity to get married and start breeding little aminals started when the World War II generation started getting married and having children. I forget where I read this, but the number of unmarried adults was something like 40% until World War 2, when it suddenly dropped to less than 10%, at which point the divorce rate skyrocted. What sort of society would you rather live in - one in which remaining single is a socially viable option, or one in which everybody feels pressure to get married, then gets divorced in a relatively short time after having one or more children?

I love that video, but the Flight of the Conchords has had a cult following for several years. They've got a new tv series on HBO, which is a sitcom broken up by impromptu music videos which advance the plot. Really, really funny stuff.

Misogamist, though not sure that's clearly pejorative. I no longer have JSTOR access, but maybe there's something in the reviews of "Single Blessedness: Observations on the Single Status in Married Society by Margaret Adams.

Seems like people are more interested in showing animosity to those "living in sin"/"shacking up" than singles...at least explicity. But I think that very well may be founded on (at least in modern times) the jealousy of singles' ability to have NSA/commitment-less sex and/or muliple partners and/or a life not tied down by children and other familial obligations. After all, everyone envies the footloose once in a while.

Thanks for playing, Blake, but I'm almost sure he meant something more along these lines:"In biology, the carrying capacity usually refers to the number of animals a given area can support with adequate food, shelter and territory or the space to reproduce," Kuper reported. Right now, Earth's carrying-capacity is thought to be somewhere in the range of four billion to five billion people. We sport 6.6 billion today and grow by 240,000 every 24 hours. "The United States possesses resources to sustain less than half of its current population of 300 million, according to ecologist Paul Ehrlich, who first called attention to potential population problems in 1968 with his book, "The Population Bomb.""Waite and other ecologists increasingly think of the idea of carrying-capacity in terms of an ecological "footprint," the amount of land on Earth that it takes to support a group of people." Americans, who make up five percent of the world's population, use 25 percent of its resources and cast a large footprint. "Ohio's footprint is like 11 times the state of Ohio," Waite said. "The average American's footprint is about 22 acres. By far, the largest component is energy. In contrast, the average citizen of India has a footprint one-sixteenth that size."

So, while India may be more crowded, each newborn Indian is far less of a burden on Earth's resources than an American baby is.

And does a single, gainfully-employed man, perhaps one who lives with others (to take advantage of economies of scale), have more favorable net consumption-production than 2 adults with 4 children? It depends how you define production, but in at least a few ways, yes. When it comes down to it, Americans who have children are not particularly responsible ecologically-speaking, because consumption will almost certainly exceed production (as evidenced by our national footprint, not to mention our trade deficit). And except for those who work while attending school, most kids are leeches for at least 18-22+ years. Never mind whoever stays home to raise those 4 children...

But then, Western civilization has never been bothered much by gluttony and by taking whatever we want at others' expense. Is it wrong that we do this (I don't claim to be on a moral highground, fyi)? Well, natural selection might say no, but it'd be nice to transcend our basest instincts on occasion.

My experience with the economy of scale is that it kicks in at about child number 3 or 4. There has been LOTS of economy under the bridge by that time I can tell you.

There is already a word for most single moms: poor. I was a half time single dad for a while, and that was really quite difficult. I loved the time with my daughter but it was difficult to get things done and my work and income certainly suffered.

If I am shackled in marriage, I am shackled to an angel, and if you only knew you would wish that you were in my shoes.

Seriously, it is my experience that some folks are temprementally equipped for marriage, some for parenthood, and some are not. Big deal. It is better for all of us to stick to what we are good at and be happy with ourselves and each other than so bitter and judgmental.

Sure, and by that logic, the greatest environmentalists of all time are Mao, Stalin, Hitler...eh, just go down the list. Rachel Carson should probably get credit for 30M dead, so she's maybe between Stalin and Hitler.

Mmmmm...Godwin. How many comments did it take for us to get there...4? Impressive. (Bonus for Stalin and Mao!!!)

In every way except procreation. I require less, I consume less, and I produce more.Sorry, but when he's right, he's right. It's really not that complicated unless you're using a selfish standpoint so you can rationalize "the more children the better." Thanks, but even though it will be hard, the other 6,602,224,175+ of us will find some way to get by without your spawn; finite resources are a fact as is overpopulation as is the relative burden of 1st world/3rd world citizens.

Speaking of Darwinian principles, the Carson thing is ridiculous claptrap (not to mention you could make similar arguments by that "logic" about Jesus, as neither would intentionally harm anyone). Never mind that if you had actually read Silent Spring (I did last year) you'd see she never called for an outright ban, she just encouraged restraint and that we not assume every chemical is harmless. (Maybe her actions have saved you from cancer, who knows?)

Anywho, there's this little problem of resistance that happens when you kill off all but the resistant organisms (selection, though not natural)...the resistant organisms flourish because they no longer have to compete for the aforementioned finite resources (all comes full circle, doesn't it...). Same reason docs don't wantonly prescribe antibiotics.

Try reading this (parts 5, 2.4, 3, 2nd half of 2.1, 4.1.2 [DDT toxicity, if I recall from a class, is highly dependent on absorption method--it's relatively benign in dust form but easily lethal when soluted in oils], and 4.3 are all illuminating), or the World Health Organization's opinion, or something other than Coulter.

But whatever. If you live in a world where you can compare genocide (active) with not having children (passive) or with trying to save humans through saving the environment and reducing carcinogens, you're probably beyond hope.

A word which suggests lack of a partner, and at the same time is just a letter different from 'selfish,' an underlying (though unspoken assumption) on the part of those who have this attitude as to what they think of the unmarried person.

A person prefers living alone because sexuality is not the defining characteristic of his (her) character. Something matters more than sex and contact and progeny. That's the placing of something (as banal as money or as great as heroic love) above human pairing. Psychiatrically, this can be called "ipsisexuality."

A high percentage of adults don't like this, particularly, married women don't like this attitude and conduct.

If you don't like anti-ipsisexuality as a label, let's start all over again and use a differeent moniker. How about Diogenophobia? Or Sibylophobia? Some adults would prefer to wander alone in persuit of honesty and wisdom, either due to an essential anti-materialism (Diogenes seeking the honest man and being unimpressed with a visit from Alexander the Great) or out of an ambition to become clairvoyant, a Sybil-in-training.

This profound desire for wisdom or prophetic skill is deeply repugnant to those who are utterly devoted to one single other human being -- which is to say, married people don't like it if you follow Diogenes or Sibyl and live alone in an existance of intellectual or mental solitude.

Historically, animosity toward the unmarried is very closely related to anti-monasticism.

English monestaries and abbeys were looted and smashed during the Protestant Reformation. The antagonism toward living alone can lead to mob violence.

I like the power of the word anti-monasticism, but married people who are antagonistic toward single people do not know themselves well enough to face the superstitious nature of their own feelings, particularly the rage and fear beneath the animosity.